Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label transparency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transparency. Show all posts

Friday, September 2, 2016

The Decline Of The Unbiased Free Press In The US


EX-HUFF POST JOURNO: HOW THE MEDIA SLEEPS WITH HILLARY

Here's just how close Hillary is to the mainstream media

12
7

Hillary Clinton has not subjected herself to an open press conference in going on 270 days.
She has sustained massive PR blows during this time frame, with the public increasingly focused on her deteriorating health, her and her husband’s byzantine money-raising foundation and even darker rumours.
Despite this, the corporate media has been a source of unlimited compassion toward Hillary Clinton and her campaign.
It’s as if Hillary Clinton makes herself available for public commentary at any and all hours of the day, such is her vitality.
It’s as if the radical transparency organization Wikileaks had not released an unsettling 30,322 emails and email attachments from her private email server — the contents of which we will get into below.
I used the phrase “as if” in the previous paragraph because in reality, of course, Hillary Clinton has been mysteriously absent from any unscripted media whatsoever.
When she *is* seen in public, it’s with the support of mysterious medical handlers around her, one of whom has been spotted with what appears to be some kind of drug injection pen.
Users on Twitter have shared photographs of what appears to be an oversized medical paddy wagon of some kind for Mrs. Clinton’s use.
A viral video made by this network’s own Paul Joseph Watson, viewed more than four million times already, purports to show Mrs. Clinton experiencing what could very well be a brief “Jacksonian seizure” or similarly disturbing neurological event, according to the experts Watson consulted.
The video footage is very unsettling and almost incontrovertible.
Given all this, you would think that a free and unfettered media would begin to peel back the curtain here and ask, well, WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON?
Hillary Clinton’s behaviour, elusiveness, and the rumours concerning her health status have now reached such a fever pitch that the media’s lack of interest… or air time… is supremely bizarre.
And thankfully a few others in the media are speaking up now, to say that whatever is happening this election season, IT IS NOT NORMAL.
The Observer’s Liz Crokin published a piece on the publication’s web site, “Media Orgs Donate to Clinton Foundation Then Downplay Clinton Foundation Scandal,” which does a good job of serving as an introduction to what is so wrong here:
Hillary Clinton and her media allies have been working overtime to put out numerous fires that continue to pop up and spread during the final weeks of her campaign for president. Recently, the flames have gotten more difficult to smother as reports of Clinton’s frail health have bled into the mainstream media, despite the unanimous and unilateral decision by the MSM to treat anyone who even raises a question as akin to a Holocaust denier. (On Sunday night, for example, Huffington Post fired contributor David Seaman and deleted his columns simply for linking to a Hillary health video that’s been viewed four million times.)
Julian Assange stoked more flames when he suggested a murdered DNC worker was the Wikileaks source for the DNC hack. Most recently, the Associated Press released a blockbuster story concluding that more than half of the people Clinton met with as secretary of state gave donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Despite these ongoing scandals, Clinton’s close yet questionable ties to media outlets such as Google, CNN, PBS and The New York Times have seemed to pay off. These entities have gone out of their way to censor negative stories about Clinton, particularly ones involving the Clinton Foundation. There’s one common thread though these media outlets suppressing harmful Clinton stories all share: they’ve donated to the Clinton Foundation.
So what is going on here? Well, the collusion between the corporate media and the Clinton campaign — for whatever reason — appears very real. It’s the culmination of relationships that have taken many years to establish and strengthen.
Thanks to Julian Assange and the Wikileaks Clinton email archive, we now know quite a bit about who is on Corporate Media Team Clinton, no matter what.
Consider an email in which Hillary Clinton is asked if she’s interested in an “informal setting to talk to some influential new York city writers and opinionators.”
It will be a “smallish dinner,” the organizer notes, where Hillary in a relaxed atmosphere will be able to relay to some of the media’s most influential “the highs and even some lows of policy making on Libya, China, Iran, the Arab spring and the Israel Palestinian issue.”
Even some of the lows! My God, does Clinton’s “flawless” foreign policy record even have any “lows” to speak of? This organizer is one bold fellow. But I digress.
The organizer concludes his pitch with what he knows Clinton will need to see the star-studded list of invitees- “They are: Eleanor Randolph and carol Giacomo from the New York times editorial board, Richard Cohen of Washington post, David Remnick and Rick Hertzberg from the New Yorker, Leon Wieseltier and Frank Foer from the New Republic, Tina Brown from Newsweek, my wife from CNN and ABC, and maybe one or two others like Tom Brokaw. The point is not to create news stories, but to ensure when these people deliver their inevitable assessments of your term as Secretary they have an appreciation.”
Of course, not to create news stories, just to have that “appreciation” when the time comes.
Hillary Clinton replied to the organizer’s pitch, “I’d like to do this and am copying my folks to start looking for a time. Thanks for staying in touch. All the best. —H.”
CCed on the email is close Clinton staffer Huma Abedin.
For me, at least, there is something completely wrong here. It’s a suspicion and a gut feeling I’ve had for years after a varied career in cable and online media.
MY OWN EXPERIENCES
When I was in Los Angeles doing my media stuff, I would sometimes tell my close friends that I thought my mere existence and career were signs America could be fixed.
There’s been some overgrowth of the surveillance state and military industrial complex, for sure. But with a free press and constitutionally protected free speech, we have the tools in our hands to fix what’s wrong, and move forward.
That’s what I thought.
But I didn’t last long out there. The national TV show I was on frequently got canceled; they fired the hosts, replacing both of them with a very establishment Meghan McCain. I was never booked again. Producers stopped returning my emails.
Eventually, I was simply shut out of any media outlets worth being on.
Thank God for the Internet, YouTube, and sites like this one. I no longer believe we have freedom of press in the United States, but the important thing to remember is that only a few people are holding us back. The few individuals financing all the biased media and propaganda, they’re outnumbered and even out moneyed. If each of us start voting with our wallets, even in small ways, it’s game over.
And they deserve a game over. As a journalist and researcher, I don’t like being shut out. Don’t like being silenced. Don’t like being disconnected from my own readers, after building up a relationship with them.
There will be hell to pay for the establishment. You can’t abuse your population in this manner and not expect blowback, fall-out, whistleblowers, and even more disclosures.
I suspect Julian Assange will drop his best stuff on the censoring military-industrial ghoul, Mrs. Clinton, immediately before the election.
If he doesn’t, it’s truly hard to fathom how the world will fare after the election. I’ve begun praying.

Saturday, March 19, 2016

If You Think Obama Administration Is Not Open Now, Wait Until He Gets Re-Elected Of If We Are Wrong And Hillary Gets Elected

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/06/130609obamashh.jpg
President Obama
President Obama
An annual report by the Associated Press shows the Obama administration’s claim to be the most transparent ever to be a categorically untrue.

A review of all Freedom of Information Act requests to 100 federal agencies during fiscal 2015 revealed a record for the number of times the White House couldn’t find a single page requested by journalists and citizens.
Government researchers “completed” 129,825 requests – one in six cases – by telling individuals or organizations they came up empty-handed, AP reported Friday. Approximately 77 percent of all requests were closed out after censored or blank files were released, a jump of 12 percent since Obama first took office.
“It’s incredibly unfortunate when someone waits months, or perhaps years, to get a response to their request – only to be told that the agency can’t find anything,” Adam Marshall, an attorney with the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told the news service.
AP said the Obama administration had a peculiar habit of finding documents after organizations filed expensive federal lawsuits. When Gawker sued the State Department over documents related to former Secretary of Hillary Clinton’s aide Philippe Reines, for example, the Obama administration suddenly found 90,000 documents; it had initially found zero.
“I want to avoid FOIA,” Reines said in one email, which his lawyer later claimed was a joke.
The federal government is supposed to undertake a good-faith effort in finding documents, but there is no way for journalists or citizens to know if that actually happened.
“It seems like they’re doing the minimal amount of work they need to do,” said Jason Leopold, an investigative reporter at Vice News and a leading expert on the records law, AP reported. “I just don’t believe them. I really question the integrity of their search.”
The White House defends its efforts by saying it completed a record 769,903 requests last fiscal year, a 19 percent increase over 2014. AP was quick to note, however, that government employees also increased the number of times they could not find anything by 35 percent.
Some of the other findings from the report include:
  • The FBI failed to find records in 39 percent of cases, or 5,168 times.
  • The Environmental Protection Agency regional office that oversees New York and New Jersey failed to find records 58 percent of the time.
  • U.S. Customs and Border Protection were unsuccessful in finding results in 34 percent of cases.
  • That government counted 250,024 times when it could not find records, a person refused to pay for documents or the government determined the request to be unreasonable or improper.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest tried to deflect attention away form Obama and onto Congress.

“Congress writes the rules and they write themselves out of being accountable,” Earnest told reporters, AP reported. “[Reporters should] continue the pressure that [they] have applied to Congress to encourage them to subject themselves to the same kinds of transparency rules that they insist other government agencies follow.”
Copyright 2016 WND

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/obama-sets-infamous-record-for-lack-of-transparency/#KgE0uuAJQKyiqIXE.99

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Dr. Gruber's Explanation Of ObamaCrapCare Is Sure To Push Many To Support Repeal.




Dr. Gruber’s honesty about lying

Dr. Gruber’s honesty about lying
MIT Economist Dr. Jonathan Gruber, widely cited as “the architect of ObamaCare,” recently committed a Kinsley gaffe, “when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.”
This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that.  In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass. It’s a second-best argument. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.
This provokes four questions:
  1. Is Dr. Gruber right that lack of transparency was a huge political advantage in enacting ObamaCare?
  2. Do Dr. Gruber’s allies in Congress and the Obama White House agree that ObamaCare cross-subsidies were intentionally obscured to avoid politically unpopular votes?
  3. Do they agree with the more general principle, that some large, explicit, and transparent subsidies will be unpopular, and that the only way to enact them is to hide and obscure them?
  4. If so, is it ethical to hide and obscure large cross-subsidies (or large costs), in ObamaCare and elsewhere, so they can be enacted into law? Does the end of greater redistribution justify the means of obfuscation, of lying to voters?
Here are my answers.
  1. Yes. Dr. Gruber is right that lack of transparency provided a huge political advantage in enacting ObamaCare. He is correct that the cross-subsidies within that bill would have doomed it had they been explicit, transparent, and well understood. If your goal is to enact unpopular subsidies then hiding them is an effective means to doing so.
  2. Yes. I would bet heavily that both Team Obama and key Congressional Democrats involved in enacting the Affordable Care Act intentionally obscured these policies as Dr. Gruber described and for the reasons he gave. I think this logic permeates the construction, drafting, and enactment of this law.
  3. Yes. I think this tactic is core to progressives’ long-term success in expanding government’s function as a massive income redistribution machine. This logic underlies hidden cross-subsidies in many of our largest government programs and the taxes imposed to finance them. It is on occasion embraced across the political spectrum, but it’s a tool used far more often  by the Left to redistribute society’s resources behind our backs.
  4. No. I think this tactic is repulsive and unethical in a representative democracy.
Here are a few areas where American economic policy hides or obscures subsidies or costs, I believe intentionally.
  • As Dr. Gruber points out, in ObamaCare the healthy cross-subsidize the sick. He does not point out that embedded within this the healthy subsidize the sick for the portion of their sickness related to unhealthy behaviors. A Congressional floor vote to defend such a value choice, if made transparent and explicit, would certainly fail.
  • ObamaCare also forces young people to subsidize older people by limiting the width of premium “rating bands” for insurance sold in the individual market. This was the result of closed-door lobbying by AARP. This one might pass Congress if voted upon explicitly, but the ACA’s architects hid it to avoid admitting that they were shafting young people.
  • Social Security conflates forced individual retirement saving, insurance programs, and massive cross-subsidies, in part to hide the latter.
  • So does Medicare. The biggest cross-subsidies are across birth year cohorts but there are plenty of others as well. Don’t get me started on trust fund accounting.
  • The employer-side half of FICA payroll taxes that finance most of Social Security and part of Medicare are often framed as if they “are paid by the employer” when their true economic burden is borne by the employee in the form of lower wages. If all FICA taxes were imposed on the employee-side they would be more transparent and less popular.
  • A minimum wage increase forces low-skilled unemployed workers to subsidize the wages of the low-skilled employed. Expanding the earned income tax credit is a more transparent way to help the low-skilled unemployed but it puts the costs on budget and in full view. The Left pushes to hide the costs and lies, claiming it’s a free lunch.
  • CAFE fuel economy requirements are less transparent than a gas tax that would achieve a similar goal. But gas tax increases are wildly unpopular while raising CAFE standards appear only to make things harder “on the auto companies.”
  • A global CO2 cap-and-trade system would have obscured the redistribution of global economic growth from developed economies to developing economies. An explicit and transparent carbon tax imposed only on developed economies would achieve a similar endpoint but would have made explicit this massive proposed global redistribution.
  • For years policymakers used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to subsidize homeowners through hidden credit subsidies. The Left pushed this for low-income homebuyers through affordable housing goals, while elected officials across the political spectrum supported the same thing for all homebuyers through special advantages conferred by government on these two firms.
I could go on. Corporate incomes taxes hide the costs imposed on the people who work for, own, and buy from these firms. Many agricultural subsidies are intentionally obfuscated to enhance their bipartisan support.
Apparently Dr. Gruber thinks it’s OK to lie to American voters when his allies are in power to enact policies that he wants but the voters wouldn’t. He then says American voters are “stupid” both for not agreeing with his value choices and for not figuring out the deception.
I disagree.
When you strip away all the complexity, economic policy is ultimately an expression of elected officials making difficult value choices. If over time these officials make value choices that do not reflect the values of the people whom they represent, they can, should, and will be replaced.
When these same elected officials, and those who advise them, deliberately construct policies to hide value choices that would be unpopular were they transparent and explicit, we end up with two terrible outcomes. We get policies that do not reflect our values, and we re-elect representatives who are lying to us.

Monday, November 10, 2014

American Voters Are Stupid According To ObamaCrapCare Architect. Anyone Who Believed Their Crap Definitely Is. We Have Fought Against This Bill From Day One, We Were NOT Fooled!

Obamacare Architect: We Passed the Law Thanks to the ‘Stupidity of the American Voter’

One of the architects of Obamacare said the law was written in a deliberately “tortured” way and relied on the “stupidity of the American voter” to ensure its passage.
In a newly unearthed 2013 clip, Jonathan Gruber, the MIT health economist who helped craft parts of the Affordable Care Act, got fairly candid about the tactics used to get the Affordable Care Act passed during a panel at the Annual Health Economists’ Conference last year.
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said in one 52-second clip. “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”
Gruber then trumpeted the value of a “lack of transparency” — and called American voters stupid.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.”
Better for the American people to be saddled with a law they don’t understand, Gruber claimed, than for them to understand the law and rally against it.
“Look, I wish … we could make it all transparent,” Gruber said, “but I’d rather have this law than not.”
UPDATE: The original video that contained Gruber’s comments was deleted from YouTube on Monday morning.

University of Pennsylvania officials did not immediately comment to TheBlaze on why the video was taken down.